"COLD WAR"
BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND TEACHERS?
Teachers' ratings of the effectiveness of supervisors are strongly
influenced by supervisors' interpersonal skills.
A
ccording to Arthur Blumberg
(1980), instructional supervis
ors believe that what they do
has high value, but the teachers with
whom they work find instructional
supervision to be of little value. To
what extent does the phrase "private
cold war" characterize the working
relationship between teachers and
supervisors'. Is the gap between their
views as wide as "cold war" implies?
How might instructional supervisors
become more effective? These are
among the key questions we ad
dressed in a recent study of science
supervisors in New York State.
Instruments for studying these is
sues were developed during our re
search over the past several years. We
asked 143 science supervisors and
258 of their teachers to express their
views on supervisory effectiveness by
rating 26 formal and nonformal su
pervisory activities. Examples of for
mal activities included curriculum
work, inservice workshops, and ob
servation of classroom teaching. Nonformal activities included helping a
teacher with a personal problem, fa
cilitating interpersonal relationships
among staff, and protecting staff from
undeserved criticism.
We also asked them to rate the
"group membership" status of the
supervisors in order to compare their
views on the quality of supervisors'
relationships with teachers. For this
survey, we used a modification of the
"Person-Group Relationship Scale''
(Felsen and Blumberg, 1973 a, b, c).
From the two surveys, we were espe
cially interested in exploring the re
lationship that might exist between
group membership status and the su
pervisors' perceived effectiveness.
Our findings support the conten
tion that supervisors and teachers
hold different views regarding superWilliain Ritz is Science Education Co
ordinator, School of Natural Sciences tit
California Stale University in Long
Beach; Jane Ciahcll is Staff Associate
for Development and Evaluation Asso
ciates, Inc., Syracuse, Ne\v York.
OCTOBUR 1980
WILLIAM C . RITZ AND
JANE G. CASHELL
yisory effectiveness and the super^isor's group membership status.
From our data, four factors influ
encing effectiveness emerged: instruc
tional/intervening, interpersonal/
supporting, management/planning,
and socializing. Two additional fac
tors regarding group membership
were identified: attraction (how
much the supervisor is attracted to
membership with the faculty) and
acceptance (how much the faculty
accepts the supervisor as a member).
These latter factors seem to corre
spond closely to the two dimensions
of group membership described by
Jackson (1959). When we computed
an analysis of variance on all six fac
tors, we found that teachers' and su
pervisors' views differed significantly
on four of them: instructional/inter
vening, interpersonal/supporting, so
cializing, and acceptance.
With regard to the first factor,
instructional/intervening activities
(such as inservice workshops and
co-teaching), supervisors rated them
selves more successful than teachers
rated them. On the second factor,
interpersonal/supporting activities
(such as helping teachers with per
sonal problems, informal communica
tions, and mediating conflict), teach
ers again rated supervisors as less
effective than the supervisors rated
themselves. However, regarding the
third factor, socializing activities (in
volving teachers in social events or
supporting faculty social events), the
supervisors rated themselves much
less effective than teachers rated
them. Finally, on the fourth factor,
acceptance in the faculty group (in
terms of how truthful, argumentative,
or friendly supervisors could be), the
teachers gave the supervisors signifi
cantly lower ratings than the super
visors gave themselves as a group.
The second part of this study
focused on trying to understand bet
ter the dynamics of effective super
vision: What are the elements that
make supervision in science effective?
We hypothesized that supervisors
who develop a relationship of "psy
chological membership" (having a
high degree of attraction and accept
ance) with their teachers are seen by
teachers as more effective supervisors
than those whose faculty relation
ships are less positive. To examine
this notion, we employed canonical
correlation analysis, a statistical pro
cedure that searches for a principle to
"explain" the relationship between
two variables, which in this case are
psychological group membership and
supervisory effectiveness.
Our analysis identified two statis
tically significant correlations. The
first relationship showed group mem
bership accounting for some 39 per
cent of the variance in supervision
effectiveness. The items from our in
struments which best explain this re
lationship suggest that general inter
personal/communication behaviors
are the source of this correlation. The
second relationship, accounting for
about 3 percent of the variance
shared by the two instruments, is per
sonal liking for the supervisor. It ap
pears that the supervisor's group
membership status strongly influences
his or her perceived job effectiveness.
Furthermore, it appears from this
analysis that the supervisor's interper
sonal/communication behavior can
be changed to obtain more positive
perceptions of his or her job effective
ness.
W
hat do the results of this
study say about the "cold
war" between supervisors and
their teachers? Is the gap between
them as wide as the phrase implies''
From our vantage point, "cold war"
is too harsh, implying great tension
just short of open conflict. That does
not seem to be the case here; al
though tension was undoubtedly
present, it existed at a fairly low level.
The science teachers and super
visors we studied did agree in their
77
effectiveness ratings in a fair number
of cases. Figure 1 displays the ten
activities that both groups agreed su
pervisors did most effectively. Note
that both groups felt the supervisors
were most effective in dealing with
supplies and equipment, activities of
special significance in science teach
ing. Also quite impressive are the
data indicating that both teachers and
supervisors viewed supervisors as
being supportive of creative ideas
originated by teachers. This agree
ment does not characterize a truly
cold war atmosphere.
In discussing perceptions of super
visor behavior and relationships,
Blumberg (1980) stresses the need
for "a balance between the energy
devoted to the task itself and that de
voted to the development of healthy
also appear to result in more positive
ratings of effectiveness.
If interpersonal/communication ac
tivities are so critical to enhanced
teacher perceptions of supervisory ef
fectiveness, what is there about the
supervisor's role that makes this such
a difficult area? Do some supervisors
simply underestimate the potency of
this aspect of their work? While most
would undoubtedly say that people
are important, they simply may not
understand just how much their atten
tion to interpersonal relationships in
fluences the teacher's view of their
effectiveness. "Busy-ness" may also
be an important factor. The super
visor who is heavily involved in the
whirlwind of "job description" re
sponsibilities may find it burdensome
to give much attention to interper-
Figure 1.
Contrasting Top Ten Supervisory Activities Handled Most Effectively
as Ranked by Science Supervisors and by Science Teachers
Ranking of
Activity
1.
x
Science Supervisors
Activities relating to supplies/equipment
Activities relating to supplies/equipment
teachers
3.
Consulting with administrators
Informal cornmuniralion and dialogue
wilh staff
4.
Curriculum activilics
Suppnrling creative ideas originated
by teachers
5.
Informal communication and dialogue
with staff
Proletlmg staff from undeserved criticism
6.
Cetimg to know staff as individuals
Celling to know staff as individuals
7.
Observation of classroom teaching
Curriculum activities
8.
Mediating conflict between teachers
and others
Helping a teacher with a personal
problem relating to school
9.
Protecting staff from undeserved criticism
Mediating conflict between teachers
and other=
Evaluation of leaching
Giving personal feedback relative to
leaching performance
10.
relationships among the people work
ing on the task." The ratings made by
the teachers in this study indicate a
fairly good balance (in terms of ac
tivities effectively accomplished) on
the part of the supervisors. Certainly,
several of the "top ten" activities are
related to the development of pro
ductive relationships among the peo
ple involved, whereas others appear
more clearly task-oriented. Again,
these ratings are not indicative of a
truly cold war atmosphere.
However, there were some key as
pects of disagreement, especially in
"interpersonal/communication" ac
tivities. We cannot ignore these dif
ferences, especially in view of the
strong statistical relationship between
this category and teacher ratings of
supervisory effectiveness. Those ac
tivities through which supervisors en
hance their group membership status
78
sonal relationships. This would be
especially true of those who have sub
stantial teaching responsibilities.
One also has to wonder to what ex
tent supervisors have been trained in
the interpersonal/communications as
pects of their positions. Certainly,
only a few school districts provide
newly-appointed supervisors with
training for their responsibilities.
Blumberg (1980) found that some
20 percent of the supervisors he stud
ied "located the source of their prob
lems in themselves, most typically in
their feelings that their communica
tions skills were inadequate."
One might also question the proc
ess through which supervisors are
selected. Few school systems select
instructional supervisors on the basis
of their "people" skills; most super
visors move into their new positions
as a result of demonstrated success in
the classroom, which does not assure
success as a supervisor. There is also
the matter of rewards to what ex
tent do school districts provide incen
tives for supervisors to devote atten
tion to the people aspects of their
work? "Success" in the institutional
sense is most often entirely linked to
the formal responsibilities of super
vision. Only the rare school district
rewards a supervisor for his or her
emphasis on interpersonal/communi
cation activities.
In the long run, the most important
factor may be found in the super
visor's job description itself. The very
fact that the supervisor is called upon
to evaluate teaching performance may
cloud even the best efforts to develop
a positive working relationship. If
this is the case, the recent suggestion
of an ASCD working group (Sturges,
1979) to separate administrative a nd
consultative s upervisory roles is espe
cially important. By whatever means
possible, however, it is essential that
supervisors improve the interper
sonal/communication aspects of their
supervision.
References
Blumberg, Arthur. Supervisors and
Teachers: A Private Cohl War. 2 nd cd.
Berkeley, Calif.: McCulthan Publishing
Co., 1980.
Felsen, M., and Blumberg. A. "Stu
dent Membership Relations in (he Class
room Group." Paper presented liefore
the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, L.a., March
I973a.
Felsen. M., and Blumberg, A.
"Teacher Membership Relations in the
Faculty Group." Study, Syracuse Universily, I973b.
Felsen, M., and Blumhcrg, A. "Class
room Group Membership: An Unex
plored Dimension of School Life."
Journal Supplement Abstract Service,
Vol. 3 (MS No. 495). American Psy
chological Association, 1973c.
Felsen, M., and Rilz. W. "Science
Supervision in New York State: An
Examination of Supervisor-Faculty Re
lationships." Sthool Science ami Mathe
matics 7 9 (October 1979): 465-472.
Jackson, Jay M. "A Space for Con
ceptualizing Person-Group Relation
ships." H uman Relations 1 2 (1959): 315.
Ritz, William, and Felsen, Martin. "A
Profile of Science Supervision in New
York State." Science Etlmation 60
(1976): 339-351.
Sturges, A. W. "Instructional Super
visors: A Dichotomy." l-,ducaiional
Leadership 3 6 (1979): 586-589.
EDUCATIONAL LEADLRSIIIP
Copyright © 1980 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. All rights reserved.